The Washington Times:
The newspaper alleged that federal agents accompanying Maryland State Police on the raid took materials from Ms. Hudson’s office that were not covered by the search warrant that authorized the collection solely of evidence about guns and a potato launcher allegedly possessed by her husband, Paul Flanagan.
The filing asks a federal judge to order the return of “property that has been unlawfully seized … in violation of the Fourth and First Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”
Should the federal government be allowed to seize a reporter's notes?
Is the Washington Times right for suing over this issue?
The government should not be allowed to seize a reporter’s notes, especially when they are searching their home for reasons that have nothing to do with their notes. Maryland laws give a fair amount of protection to journalists in terms of not revealing their sources in criminal investigations and seizing notes negates this protection. By seizing notes when searching a home for other reasons, the government gets around laws that protect journalists and their sources. If the federal government is allowed to seize a reporter’s notes it would not surprise me if many would be whistleblowers shy away from going to the press not because they don’t trust the reporters but because notes that reveal their identity could be taken and read by government officials at any time.
ReplyDeleteThe Times is right to sue over the issue since it brings attention to the confiscation of the notes and could end up setting a precedent that protects other journalists’ notes from seizure if it gets high enough in the court system.
I think the government should be allowed to seize a reporter's notes only in the most extreme circumstances and when it is absolutely necessary or critical to do so. In this incident, the fact that police seized items and notes not included in the search is definitely not OK and should be fought by the reporter and Washington Times. As Max alluded to, this is basically an invasion of privacy and really should not be tolerated by news organizations. I agree that this could have a potentially big impact on how reporters get information and reach out to their sources to cover a story. As Max said, more whistleblowers may be more hesitant to reveal information now that they can't be sure their confidentiality will be 100% protected. I'm very interested to see how this case will be decided and hopefully for journalists everywhere; the Washington Times comes away with the favorable ruling.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, I agree that the Washington Times deserves a favorable ruling as well. It is not okay for the government to seize notes, especially if they weren't included in the initial search. This possibility is not only unfair to the journalists, due to a possible change in reporting methods it may bring about, but also to the public, who deserves to get all the facts. I hope that this situation is highlighted a great deal in the media, so that the public knows what the government is doing as well.
ReplyDelete